Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We need a government that works

US Capitol

Each branch of government needs to get serious about restoring the public's trust.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

The first — and really only — order of business for the government is to solve problems beyond the grasp of a single person or a small community. In exchange for that service, we the people surrender some of our income and liberty. This grand bargain breaks down when the government decides it’s got other things to do besides take care of everything from our sewage to our space debris.

The longer the government falls short of our expectations, the more likely the people will be to opt out of their own obligations, such as voting. This dangerous tit-for-tat is hard to reverse. A less effective government sparks a less dutiful public, which makes it harder for the government to perform, and so on.


That’s precisely why the first agenda item for every politician who wins in November ought to be basic government work. For Congress, it’s time to get serious about regulating artificial intelligence. A series of performative hearings in which the celebrities of AI, such as Sam Altman, made flashy appearances on Capitol Hill have yet to generate meaningful legislation. The AI Policy Roadmap recently released by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and three other senators did little to assuage concerns that Congress is happy to let states lead on AI governance.

A handful of small bills might address specific AI issues, but — absent passage of comprehensive legislation — the public is right to question if lawmakers are taking their part of the deal seriously.

For the president, the relative tranquility of the present is the proper time to prepare for future, inevitable emergencies. The federal government’s response to Covid-19 was far from perfect. From the initial confusion over who should wear a mask and when, to prolonged and troubling efforts to quash debate over the proper response, there is tremendous room for improvement.

The nature of our interconnected and global world means that another crisis will unfortunately emerge sooner than later. Imagine the good that would come about from the president overseeing massive emergency drills in preparation of threats like the deployment of a bioweapon. Picture how much smoother the Covie response would have been if the American people had preexisting stores of emergency supplies. These efforts are flashy but they are what’s required by an effective government.

For the courts, the integration of AI into our legal system should not be left to chance. State and federal courts alike have clogged dockets and insufficient support for individuals who cannot afford a lawyer but also cannot afford to lose whatever claim brought them before the court. AI will not and cannot entirely solve those issues, but the technology should be used to the greatest extent possible to help those who too commonly find that our legal system fails to provide the justice it promises.

None of these initiatives are partisan. And all of them go to the purpose of the government: solving problems. There’s a long list of similar, basic projects that would go a long way toward making the government more effective and efficient. The longer this grows, the greater the odds of (even more) discontent and distrust. That’s why candidates across the spectrum should focus less on short-term, shiny projects and much more on what will make American lives easier both now and for decades to come.

The latter kind of project won’t get headlines on Fox or MSNBC, but it will keep the wheels of government turning, which is no small feat given decades of rust.

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less
From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.

Keep ReadingShow less